M 



Z8 





iii!:;asa!ffi!ffl::';!(:(!i;!,!i'S!;;;£ag'iijnBa;giiiii:igi!ii:K-^^ 



f 






New York in 18^0 and in i8go. A Political Study. 



2ln 2lMJrcss 



DELIVERED BEFORE THE 



NeW'York Historical Society 



EIGHTY-SE VEN TH ANNIVERSAR V, 

Tuesday, November 17, 1891, ^ 

BY THE 

HON. SETH LOW, LL.D., 



PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 




1892 



NEJV YORK: 
PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY 

1892. 



New York ix i8'jo and nv 1800. A Political Study. 



2lu 2lt>tiircs0 

DELIVERED BEFORE THE 

New York Historical Society 

ON ITS 

EIGHTY-SEVEI^TH ANNIVERSARY, 

Tuesday, November 17, 1891, 

BY TH^^ 

HON. SETH ^LOW, LL.D., 



PRESIDENT OF COLIMBIA COLLEGE. 




NEW YORK: 
PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY. 

1892. 



Officers of the Society, 1892. 



PRESIDENT, 

JOHN ALSOP KING. 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, 

JOHN A. WEEKES. 

SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT, 

JOHN S. KENNEDY. 

FOREIGN CORRESPONDING SECRETARY, 

JOHN BIGELOW. 

DOMESTIC CORRESPONDING SECRETARY, 

EDWARD F. DE LANCEY 

RECORDING SECRETARY, 

ANDREW WARNER. 

TREASURER, 

ROBERT SCHELE. 

LIBRARIAN, 

CHARLES ISHAM. 



EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 



FIRST CLASS — FOR ONE YEAR, ENDING 1 893. 

JOHN A. VVEEKES, JOHN W. C. LEVERIDGE, 

J. PIERPONT MORGAN. 

SECOND CLASS FOR TWO YEARS, ENDING 1 894. 

EDWARD F. DE LANCEY, DANIEL PARISH, Jr., 

FRANCIS TOMES. 

THIRD CLASS — FOR THREE YEARS, ENDING 1895. 

BENJAMIN H. FIELD, FREDERIC GALLATIN, 

CHARLES HOWLAND RUSSELL. 

FOURTH CLASS FOR FOUR YEARS, ENDING 1 896. 

JOHN S. KENNEDY, GEORGE W. VANDERBILT, 

WILLIAM KELBY. 

JOHN A. WEEKES, Chairman, 
DANIEL PARISH, Jr., Secretary. 

[The President, Recording Secretary, Treasurer, and Librarian 
are members, ex-officio, of the Executive Committee.] 



COMMITTEE ON THE FINE ARTS. 

DANIEL HUNTINGTON, JACOB B. MOORE, 
ANDREW WARNER, HENRY C. STURGES, 

JOHN A. WEEKES, GEORGE W. VANDERBILT. 

DANIEL HUNTINGTON, Chairman, 
ANDREW WARNER, Secretary. 

[The President, Librarian, and Chairman of the Executive Com- 
mittee are members, ex-officio, of the Committee on the Fine Arts.] 



PROCEEDINGS. 

At a meeting of the New York Historical Society, held in 
its Hall, on Tuesday, November 17, 1891, to celebrate the Eighty- 
seventh Anniversary of the Founding of the Society : 

The exercises were opened with prayer by the Rt. Rev. Henry 
C. Potter, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of New York. 

The Anniversary Address was then delivered by the Hon. Seth 
Low, LL.D,, President of Columbia College, on " New York in 1850 
and 1890. A Political Study." 

On its conclusion, the Rev, Eugene A. Hoffman, D.D., D.C.L., 
Dean of the General Theological Seminary, submitted the following 
resolution, which, after remarks by Mr. William H. Monell and 
the Hon. Charles A. Peabody, was adopted unanimously : 

Resolved, That the thanks of the Society be presented to the 
Hon. Seth Low, LL.D., for the able, learned, and instructive ad- 
dress which he has delivered this evening, and that he be requested 
to furnish a copy for publication. 

A benediction was then pronounced by the Rev. David H. 
Greer, D.D,, Rector of St. Bartholomew's Church. 

The Society then adjourned. 

Extract from the Minutes : 

Andrew Warner, 

Recording Secretary. 



NEW YORK IN i85o AND IN i89o. 

A POLITICAL STUDY. 



Gentlemen of the New York Historical Society : 

The subject to be dealt with scarcely needs expla- 
nation, but a few words as to my point of view may 
throw light upon the treatment of it. By 1850, New 
York had fairly entered upon the era of popular gov- 
ernment, under conditions as to population and suffrage 
similar to those which exist to-day. In I^'46, the im- 
migration of the year into the United States exceeded 
150,000 persons, wdiile by 1850 the number had grown 
to 370,000 for the year. The city had already in 1850 
a population of 515,000, of whom nearly one-third 
were of foreign birth. 

In point of population, therefore, New York was in 
1850 already a large city, and it displayed the same 
characteristics as now in its electorate. Accordingly, 
we ought to be able, by a study of this period of forty 
years, to form a just idea of the results of popular gov- 
ernment in this city under these conditions. Such a 
study I conceive to be important, because it may do 
something to modify two opinions more or less preva- 
lent among our people, both of which, in my view, help 
to make it more difficult to obtain good city govern- 
ment. On the one hand, you will hear in some quar- 



8 Neiv York in 1850 and in 1890. 

ters all our woes traced to universal suffrage and to 
the foreign immigration. Those who hold this view 
are of little value to the cause of good government, be- 
cause they say it is hopeless, that nothing can be done 
under such conditions. If it is possible to demonstrate, 
from the actual results of these forty years in New 
York City, that great and important improvements in 
government have been effected under precisely such 
conditions, the significance of such a demonstration 
is apparent, because what is capable of improvement 
may be improved still further. On the other hand, a 
still more numerous body of our people, without per- 
haps saying so in so many words, are of the opinion 
that whatever the people decide to do at any given 
time is the best possible thing to be done. In other 
words, such people are largely unconscious of defects 
in the city government, because they have no adequate 
standard. These are of little value to the cause of im- 
provement, because they do not see the need for im- 
provement. It may, therefore, even be helpful to point 
out some of the failures and mistakes of the forty 
years. 

I propose to deal first with governmental forms. I 
must ask you to bear with me while I try to make 
clear the salient features of the government of New 
York in the year 1850. To this end a brief summary 
of the charter history of the city up to that time is im- 
portant. The earliest English charter, after the Eng- 
lish had finally established their hold on the province, 
that of Governor Dongan, granted in 1686, recites 
that New York, even at that date, was an ancient city. 
This charter was somewhat enlarged in 1708, by Gov- 
ernor Cornbury, and re-enacted in the Montgomerie 
Charter of 1730. This latter charter was so funda- 



New York in 1850 and in 1890. 9 

mental in character that Chancellor Kent was able to 
say of it, in 1836, that the charter of 1730 was " the 
foundation upon which the city of New York was then 
governed." "It has withstood," he says, "the shock 
of the American Revolution, which for a time suspended 
its functions, and it was confirmed by the Constitution 
of 1777, and again by the Constitution of 182 1. It 
remains to this day (1836) with much of its original 
form and spirit, after having received by statute such 
modifications, and such a thorouo-h enlaro-ement in its 
legislative, judicial, and executive branches, as were 
best adapted to the genius and wants of the people, 
and to the astonishing growth and still rapidly increas- 
ing wealth and magnitude of the city." So writes 
Chancellor Kent in 1836. Doubtless the grants and 
franchises of the early charters remain a part of New 
York's rich inheritance up to this day. 

But even in 1836 many and important changes had 
come over the o-overnmental forms under which the 
city was governed. By the State Constitution of 1777, 
the Mayor of New York and all local officials except 
aldermen and constables, were appointed by the State 
Council of Appointment. This body was composed 
of the Governor and of four Senators chosen b}^ the 
Assembly of the State, one senator from each of the 
four great senatorial districts into which the State was 
then divided. The city was thus directly administered 
by the State. This system prevailed until 1821. 

In 1814, so important a man as DeWitt Clinton was 
removed from the office of Mayor of the city of New 
York by this State Council of Appointment, and Mr. 
John Ferguson, Grand Sachem of the Tammany So- 
ciety, was appointed in his stead, " under an under- 
standing that Mr. Ferguson was soon to be provided 



lo Neiv York in 1850 and in 1890. 

with an office by the General Government (Surveyor 
of the Port) when one Mr. Raddiffe was to receive 
the office of Mayor. . . . This arrangement was 
fully carried into effect." So writes Jabez Hammond 
in his " PoHtical History of New York State." This 
is interesting, because it shows how, even at a time 
when the Mayor was appointed, and when the suffrage 
was hmited, and when immigration was wholly unim- 
portant, the Tammany Society was able to treat the 
city of New York as a political estate to be dealt with 
at its own pleasure. It does not lessen the injury 
which the city has received from this sort of treatment 
to show that it has persisted for three-quarters of a 
century, but it ought to prevent us from charging this 
sort of thincr either to universal suffraee or to foreicrn 
immigration ; for it was indulged in long before either 
of these elements entered into the problem. 

By 1821, abuses of this character had become so un- 
bearable that in the constitutional revision of that year 
the power of appointing the Mayor and other local 
officials was taken away from the State authorities, 
and lodged in the Common Council of the city. The 
next ten years were years of continual agitation for 
charter changes. These culminated in 1830 in a new 
charter which created a Common Council consistine 
of two chambers, and provided, though not even then 
for the first time, for spring charter elections. In this 
charter the first attempt was made to define the duties 
of the Mayor. It is significant that Chancellor Kent, 
in commenting on the Mayor's powers under this char- 
ter, treats, first, of his legislative powers ; second, of 
his judicial powers ; third, of his executive powers. In 
effect, under this charter the Mayor had no executive 
duties of any moment. The charter provided, "That 



Nczv York in 1850 and in 1890. 11 

the executive business of the corporation of New York 
shall hereafter be performed by distinct departments, 
which it shall be the duty of the Common Council to 
organize and appoint for that purpose." These depart- 
ments, it will be perceived, held no relation whatever 
to the Mayor of the city. In 1833, at the instance of 
the Common Council itself, the Mayor of the city was 
made an elective officer, to be chosen then, as now, by 
universal suffrage. At this time, however, foreign im- 
migration was not an important factor. Mr, Hone, in 
his delightful diary, fails to give the impression that 
everything was perfect in the city administration even 
at this period. At least he writes of the politics of the 
time in language quite as strong as anyone would use 
now. Certainly the impression grew that the charter 
of 1830, even as amended by making the Mayor elec- 
tive, was not an effective instrument for good govern- 
ment. Accordingly, in 1849, still another charter was 
obtained, and that brino-s us to the form of Qrovernment 
in 1850, the time at which our more detailed study is 
to begin. 

This brief sketch emphasizes vividly the two points 
I am anxious to make clear : first, that the government 
of the city, when it rested on a restricted suffrage, was 
not satisfactory to the inhabitants, even at a time when 
immigration had contributed substantially nothing to 
the difficulties of the problem ; second, that the city 
has been a football in the field of the larger politics of 
the State and the nation at least from the beginning of 
the century. So, then, even this bad habit is not to 
be charired to universal suffrasfe or to immio-ration. 
Nevertheless it is startling to perceive how deep-rooted 
this difficulty is. It is not so strange, perhaps, that 
when the State administered the city, the State should 



12 Netv York in \?>$0 and in 1890. 

use the city as a pawn in its own game of government. 
But it is singular that after the people of the city have 
so long enjoyed the right to choose their own Mayor, 
that they should continue to make their choice on the 
lines of national divisions. Doubtless this tendency in 
every city is one of the greatest obstacles in the United 
States to a really high standard in city government ; 
for city officials will not fail to give the city the second 
place in their thoughts, so long as they perceive that 
the citizens are quite content to allow the city elections 
to be mere incidents in the strife of national parties. 
A bad habit of such long standing is hard to shake off, 
but every good citizen must do what he can to develop 
the better public opinion that will make it possible to 
do so. 

However, by 1850 this was the problem. A large 
and rapidly growing city, whose population was com- 
posed of heterogeneous elements, was to be adminis- 
tered, not only by universal suffrage, but as a sort of 
by-play in the strife of parties. What, then, were the 
characteristics of the charter of New York in 1850, and 
what are they in 1890? I take it that a city charter, 
as embodying the machinery of city government, in 
order to produce good results must be adapted to the 
power which is to operate it. A wooden bow will 
shoot an arrow, but it requires a very different weapon 
to enable one to use powder. That is the significance 
of all the talk about city charters. It is not contended 
that any charter will operate itself, or produce the best 
results unless administered by good men. But it is 
seriously and urgently contended that a charter adapted 
to the power that is to operate it, is essential to secur- 
ing the best results from any men, while it may also 
tend to minimize the evils flowing from bad officials. 



Neiv York in i^^O and iji 1890. 13 

In the earlier charters the subjects considered came in 
this order: the legislative, the judicial, the executive. 
By 1849, executive business claimed the second place ; 
in 1890, it is clearly first. This, then, at least, the 
people have shown themselves competent to learn : 
that the principal business of a city government is ad- 
ministrative, not legislative. In 1849, iii^e executive 
departments were created by the charter. In 1830, 
the Common Council was to create all executive de- 
partments. Thus it had been learned, in a measure at 
least, even by 1850, that the executive departments, 
under our American conditions, in order to have any 
sort of efficiency must be independent of the Common 
Council. I know good results have been obtained by 
competent men under other systems, that in Birming- 
ham and Glaso-ow, for instance; fine executive work 
has been done under the oversight of committees of 
the legislative body. But the people of New York 
have not composed their Common Council, as a whole, 
of such material at any time within the period under 
review, if they ever did. This point is fairly cited, 
therefore, as an instance where New York has prof- 
ited by experience. In 1S50, seven of these heads 
of departments, while they had ceased to owe their 
origin to the Common Council, were to be elected by 
the people, it being supposed by those who advocated 
this change that election by the people would do away 
with the spoils system, which was already a matter of 
complaint, and that thus increased efficiency w^ould be 
secured. As might have been supposed, the actual 
result was that the nominal Mayor was surrounded by 
seven little mayors, over whom he had no control, and 
confusion rapidly grew worse confounded. In 1890, 
most of the heads of departments are to a great extent 



14 New York i?i \Z^o and in 1890. 

responsible to the Mayor, are appointed by him with- 
out even confirmation by the Common Council, and 
thus they form parts of a governmental machine which 
has at least the merit of being workable as one whole. 
In my judgment, the terms of executive officers ap- 
pointed by the Mayor should correspond with the 
term of the Mayor appointing them, and he should also 
have the power of removal, in order that responsibil- 
ity may go hand in hand with power. But, even as it 
stands, in this respect also the charter of 1890 marks 
an immense advance over ] 850. 

In 1850, the budget for the city had to be confirmed 
in Albany by the Legislature. Since 1870, the city 
budget has been prepared by the Board of Estimate 
and Apportionment, and the tax levy for the year has 
been laid by the local authorities. It is a curious fact 
that some of the best provisions of the present charter 
were first secured in the celebrated Tweed charter of 
1870, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment being 
an example. This charter had many features to com- 
mend it, and it ought not to be forgotten that the mis- 
chief wrought by Tweed and his fellows was done 
more under collateral acts of the Legislature than 
through the charter itself This is mentioned by the 
way, because it is often thought sufficient to condemn 
a good proposition, by those not well informed, to say 
of it that this was the plan of the Tweed charter. 

In effect, therefore, it seems to be clear that a body 
politic governed by just such a population as ours, and 
under just such conditions, has been able to learn, in 
forty years, some most important lessons touching the 
structure of the city government best adapted to its 
own use. Whatever may be the evils of which we 
complain to-day, and I have no disposition to under- 



New York in \^$o and in 1890. 15 

state them, I presume there is no one who will not ad- 
mit that the city would be infinitely worse off if the 
charter of 1850 were the charter of 1891. 

This leads me to touch upon another point. Some- 
one may say that all of these improvements have been 
wrought by the Legislature of the State, that the city 
has had no part in them other than to accept them. 
This is only nominally true. The law-making power 
doubtless has passed the laws, but in many cases, if not 
in all, the law has simply embodied the best judgment 
of the city. Again, if it is true that local elections have 
been merely incidents in the political struggle for the 
control of the State, so it is also true that the city, dur- 
ing this whole interval, has been subject to the joint 
control of its own citizens and of the Legislature. The 
consequences of legislative interference have been 
both good and bad ; the result is the complex effect 
of many causes. It is not important for my purpose 
to distinguish between these causes and to apportion 
to each its efficacy. It is enough if I have been able 
to show, as to the form of the city government, that 
improvement is clearly discernible during the forty 
years under review. The case is not hopeless if so 
great a population, in the face of every conceivable 
difficulty, has been able to make distinct progress in 
the political science of city government. Nevertheless, 
it ought to be said that the constant interference of 
the Legislature in the details of the city government is 
a source of almost unmixed harm. A constitutional 
amendment which should clearly define the sphere of 
the Legislature with reference to the city, would be of 
the greatest advantage, especially if it should take 
from the Legislature all power to interfere in details. 
Up to 182 1 the city was practically administered by 



1 6 Neiv York in 1850 and in 1890. 

the State. In 182 1, the city secured the right to choose 
its own officers. In 185 1, the city set up a claim of 
independence of legislative control. The next ten 
years were full of the contest so arising. This contest 
resulted in the disbandment of the city police, and in 
the establishment of a metropolitan police by author- 
ity of the Legislature. The Legislature was victorious 
all along the line, and the city has suffered much from 
Legislative excesses ever since. Public opinion now 
begins to perceive that the truth lies between the two 
extremes. The Legislature must grant the city charter, 
but it must be a charter to enable the city to govern 
itself, not an instrument to be played upon at will by 
the Legislature. 

It is not to be supposed that the present charter of 
New York is a perfect instrument, although it is 
better than those which have preceded it. It does not 
come within the scope of this paper to make a detailed 
study of the charter, but it may be useful to call public 
attention to one of its provisions which has been al- 
ready alluded to, but which will bear more specific 
treatment. The following officials are appointed by 
the Mayor, without confirmation by the Common 
Council, and for the terms specified : 

Years. 

3 Excise Commissioners 3 

Chamberlain 4 

Corporation Counsel 4 

Commissioner of Public Works 4 

4 Park Commissioners 5 

4 Police Commissioners 6 

3 Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments 6 

3 Dock Commissioners 6 

Street-cleaning Commissioner 6 

3 Commissioners of Charities and Correction 6 

3 Fire Commissioners 6 

2 Health Commissioners 6 



New York in \Z^o and in 1890. 17 

The term of office of the Mayors who make these 
appointments is two years. Among other things it is 
clear, therefore, that the Mayor who makes the ap- 
pointments has great power, but it is equally clear 
that by this arrangement power and responsibility are 
divided. So long as the Mayor making the appoint- 
ments is in office it may fairly be claimed that the ap- 
pointees are responsible to the Mayor. When the 
appointing Mayor retires from office, however, these 
various commissioners are in no sense responsible to 
his successor more than they would be if they had 
been appointed by the Governor of the State. In the 
meantime the successive Mayors of the city enjoy very 
unequal opportunities for moulding the character of 
the city government. Popularly, they are supposed to 
have equal power, and are judged by the same stand- 
ard ; as matter of fact one, or even two Mayors, may 
be called upon to bear criticisms for the poor govern- 
ment that is due to the appointments of their predeces- 
sor. It seems to me clear that in this matter power 
and responsibility should go hand in hand. I believe 
in giving the Mayor the power of appointment without 
confirmation, and also the power of removal, because 
that is the best way yet discovered, in my judgment, 
to unify the city government and to make all its parts 
work together as one whole, while at the same time it 
brings the whole administrative side of the city gov- 
ernment within complete control of the citizens, through 
their ability to elect the Mayor. On the other hand, 
an essential part of the advantages to be gained by 
courageously following the theory to its conclusion, is 
lost unless each Mayor has the opportunity of appoint- 
ing the officials for whom he is to be responsible. 
Ihitil this defect in the charter is remedied, New York 



1 8 Nezv York in \^^o and in 1890, 

will continue to suffer to a considerable extent from in- 
efficient administration, due to the fact that the differ- 
ent departments of the city government have no vital 
connection with its administrative head. There is no 
other way so effective to keep the different parts of 
the machine from colliding with each other, and to sub- 
stitute co-operation in the city government for contin- 
ual friction, unless indeed it can be done by making 
such appointments for an indefinite term, and giving to 
the Mayor the power of removal. 

But I must leave this digression into details. What- 
ever are the defects of the present charter, I have 
shown, as I think you will admit, that governmental 
forms in New York have improved since 1850 ; but 
while it is something to do this, it is even more to the 
point to show that important results, directly traceable 
to more efficient government and better laws, have also 
been achieved. This is notably the case in the matter 
of public order. " New York had its negro riots in 
1 71 2, and again in 1741 ; its Stamp Act riots in 1765 ; 
its doctors' riots in 178S ; its spring election riots in 
the year 1834 (this, it should be remembered, was the 
date of the first popular election of Mayor) ; its aboli- 
tion riots in 1834-35; its flour riots in 1837; the fa- 
mous Astor Place riots in 1849, resulting from the ri- 
valry between the actors Forrest and Macready ; its 
police riots in 1857; its draft riots during the year 
1863." In July, 1871, the so-called Orange riots took 
place, since which time there has been no riot. In the 
interval since 187 r, moreover, great popular excitement 
has been aroused by labor strikes, some of them local 
and others wide-spreading in their influence. But the 
community which in 1849 indulged in a riot about ac- 
tors that resulted in the death of twenty-two persons 



New York in \%^Q and in 1890. 19 

and the wounding- of thirty others, has passed through 
the trying times of later years without bloodshed. 
After all deductions have been made, the record be- 
tokens at once a more efficient police force and a bet- 
ter self-control on the part of the population. 

The improvement in the manner of conducting elec- 
tions is equally notable. In 1850 there was no regis- 
tration. Repeating was easy and frequent, and disturb- 
ances more or less serious were a normal part of elec- 
tion day. The Trihtnie of November 4, 1850, in one 
of its editorials, says : 

" We were visited last Saturday by a person who 
offered us fifty votes from Williamsburg for the Whig 
ticket for one dollar each. He said his clients were 
coming over to vote, anyhow, and were offered $50 to 
vote the Loco-Foco ticket, but they did not care which 
way they voted, so they obtained the cash. It is a 
burning shame that the legal voters of this city have 
not the protection of registry, but since that is denied 
us, we exhort our challengers and wide-awake men to 
protect the rights of the qualified electors by the most 
determined exertions." 

When every effort had been made to prevent repeat- 
ing there still remained, as late as 1870, the situation 
revealed in Tweed's scornful question : " What are 
you going to do about it when we count the votes ? " 
Of late years, registration laws have greatly lessened 
the opportunity for repeating, while the count is now 
both rapid and accurate. Some cheating there may 
perhaps be ; but the evil is on a small scale, if it exists 
at all. New York certainly has, in 1891, what it as 
certainly did not have in 1850, substantially fair elec- 
tions. On the last election day public order was per- 
fectly maintained. All this in a city with the most he- 



20 Neiv York in \%'^o and in 1890. 

terogeneous population on the face of the globe. And 
this order is self-maintained, for almost the whole po- 
lice force is on dtity at the polls. At this election 
more than two hundred and twenty thousand voters 
cast their ballots in the city of New York, and in six 
hours the result was substantially known all over the 
country. We are so accustomed to this that we do not 
always realize what a triumph of civilization it is ; one 
may say, in fact, what a triumph of American Democ- 
racy. When the Australian ballot system, so recently 
adopted, has been perfected by the blanket ballot, the 
opportunity for repeating will be reduced to a mini- 
mum ; and our election system of to-day will as much 
surpass the system of 1850 as the steam printing- 
presses of to-day surpass the hand-presses of the ear- 
lier period. The blanket ballot will also take away the 
last excuse from the party organizations for assessing 
candidates, and will make it possible to devise a Cor- 
rupt Practices Act which will be effective. 

The death-rate of the city, also, is much lower in 
1890 than in 1850. In 1850, on less accurate returns, 
it was 30.60 in the 1,000. In 1890 it was 24.58, in spite 
of the immense increase in the number of immigrants, 
and a population which has multiplied in the interval 
threefold. The sanitary and the building laws are 
vastly improved. The increased efficiency of the po- 
lice force, as shown in the better public order that is 
maintained, has already been referred to. 

In 1850 the city enjoyed only such protection from 
fires as a volunteer fire department could afford. A 
little book written in 1849 speaks as follows : "As in 
all large cities, alarms of fire are frequent in New York. 
Scarcely a night passes that some portion of the fire- 
men are not called into service, and often several times 



Nezv York in \%^o arid in 1890. 21 

the same night. The attempt to follow the engines in 
case of alarm to the scene of the fire is futile. Stran- 
gers are often seen returning after a long and fruitless 
search, having failed to discover the least cause for an 
alarm. And often when there is a fire, and the fire not 
far distant, it is impossible to approach near the scene 
of conflagration without danger of injury from the 
engines or the crowd." New York is still subject to 
fires, but the engines are no longer followed to the 
scene by crowds that endanger wandering strangers, 
while an efficient paid fire department grapples suc- 
cessfully with conflagrations which in 1850 would 
have been entirely beyond control. 

The book from which I have just quoted was written 
by A. Porter Belden, M.A., and is entitled " New 
York : Past, Present, and Future." It is dedicated 
to Albert Gallatin, LL.D., President of the New 
York Historical Society. It contains a wonderfully 
accurate estimate of the probable population of the 
city in 1890, to wit, 1,770,239. The United States 
census of 1890 showed 1,513,501, and the city census 
1,710,715 souls. This book contains a map of the 
city in 1849, showing its utmost limit to be 26th 
Street. The writer's picturesque description is as 
follows : " The principal portion of the island, in- 
cluding about one-fifth of the whole area, is compactly 
built. The remainder is mostly under tillage. A few 
narrow and crooked streets that have existed from the 
days of Pieter Wolfersten Van Couwenhoven, and 
which, according to the facetious Knickerbocker, were 
opened by the kine of the settlement, have occasioned 
much scandal as to the regularity of New York ; but 
that must be a superficial view that passes over 
those noble streets that traverse nearly the whole 



22 New York in 1850 and in 1890. 

length of the city, without a diversion to the right 
hand or the left, or of the northern half of the compact 
part of the city, which scarce includes an angle more 
or less than 90° ; or those spacious and splendid 
avenues that, eleven in number, each one hundred 
feet in width, run parallel to each other through the 
upper wards to the remote extremity of the island. 
In a few years, too, the most irregular portions of the 
city may perhaps suit those who now declaim so loudly 
against its want of regularity. Probably no other city 
would have evinced the public spirit of New York 
in wideninof and straiofhtenincj its ancient streets. 
Large piles of valuable buildings have opposed no 
barrier to the accomplishment of this object. The 
work of improvement is not yet completed. While 
we write, the crash of buildings under the hand of in- 
novation can be heard making way for an outlet to one 
of the principal business streets of the city." It is 
interesting to learn that the street thus referred to is 
William Street, the upper part of which was formerly 
called Horse and Cart Street. One cannot wholly 
fail to enjoy the obvious satisfaction of the writer with 
the straight line and the right angle. He seems al- 
most to have heard the lines which have been thrown 
into verse in these later days : 

Straight is the line of duty, 
Curved is the line of beauty ; 
Follow the one, and thou shall see 
The other always follow thee. 

In that day Broadway reached only to Union Place. 
This suggestive passage appears in the writer's de- 
scription of Broadway in 1849: "The principal lines 
of omnibuses pass through this street, but their prog- 
ress in the lower portion is so slow that their utility 



New York in I'^^O and in 1890. 23 

for short distances is much chminished. To obviate 
this inconvenience an elevated railway has been pro- 
posed, but the opposition of some of the citizens to 
this measure has yet to be removed." It has taken 
longer, perhaps, than was anticipated in 1849 to re- 
move the opposition of some of the citizens to an ele- 
vated railway ; but it is somewhat striking" to learn 
that such a structure was thought of at that early date. 
The streets at that day were mostly paved with 
cobble-stone. I am sorry to say that our author does 
not think it worth while to say whether they were 
kept clean or not. While my own recollection is not 
distinct as to the earlier period of which I am writing, 
I think I may appeal to the memory of those among 
you who can recall the city of 1S50, and claim, without 
fear of contradiction, that our streets are better paved 
and certainly not less clean, I understand very well 
that, tried by the standards of to-day, and tested by 
comparison with many European cities, the condition 
of our streets is a subject of just criticism, but I am 
comparing 1890 with 1850 in New York, and I be- 
lieve the claim to be a just one, that a great improve- 
ment in favor of the later period can be established. 
It is not without a certain significance that in this in- 
terval the city on its material side has grown marvel- 
lously. Streets and avenues which existed only upon 
paper in 1850 are now well - paved and well-kept 
thoroughfares, bordered with fine houses. The sewer 
system, which was then in its infancy, has become 
equal to the demands of a city three times as large. 
The w^ater- works have been developed at great cost, 
so that they are able to meet (unless this present 
drought causes them to fail) not only the needs of 
the greatest population in the country, but also the 



24 Neiu York in xZ^o and in 1890. 

demands of the greatest manufacturinQ:- centre in the 
Union. The river front has been developed, only af- 
ter a fashion it is true, but still so as to be capable of 
meeting' the demands of a greatly increased commerce, 
both marine and inland, carried on almost entirely 
in vessels and floats which could not have used the 
earlier piers. It may be said, I know, that this enor- 
mous growth of New York simply proves that the 
forces which have tended to make a great city here 
have been so powerful that no amount of bad govern- 
ment could prevent the city's growth. It remains 
true, however, that the government of the city has 
met the growing demands of the period, at least, well 
enough to have kept pace with them in many impor- 
tant particulars. 

In 1850, for example, the total acreage of public 
parks amounted to one hundred and seventy acres. 
Even the author of the book I have already quoted is 
unable to persuade himself that New York in 1849 was 
fortunate among cities in the extent of its parks and 
public grounds, and he makes the following observa- 
tion : "The yards and cemeteries that surround sev- 
eral of the churches in the thickly settled portion of the 
city may be mentioned as a partial compensation for 
its deficiency in grounds appropriated to public use ; 
but as they are only open on the Sabbath, they little 
more than serve the purpose of relieving the eye by 
their occasional patches of verdure in the monotony ot 
a crowded city," Union Square was called " the child 
of necessity " by that right-angled generation, because 
they did not know how else to manage the cross-cuts 
of Broadway and the Bowery. It is true that New 
York to-day is as lamentably deficient in small parks 
and breathing-places as it was in 1850; but it ought 



Neiv York in 1850 and in 1890. 25 

not to remain so, for, by a law passed In 1887, the city 
authorities have the right to expend $1,000,000 a year 
for the purpose of opening up such breathing-spots in 
the crowded parts of the city. I do not understand why 
this power has not been used as freely as possible, for 
it certainly gives the opportunity to confer a double 
blessing upon the city. The worst tenement-houses 
can be removed where they are crowded together, and 
neighborhoods which are a source of danger to health 
can be turned into pleasure-giving and health-giving 
localities. No one who has visited London can fail to 
be struck with the imniense number of these small 
parks in all sorts of fascinating shapes, now the cres- 
cent, now the square, and now the garden. This for- 
tunate result has come to London as the good side of 
the system of land ownership prevailing there, which 
in other directions has not been so advantageous to the 
city. Most of these small parks are due to the sagac- 
ity of the owners of real estate, who, owning land in 
laroe areas, have seen it to be to their own advantage 
to develop their property with crescents and gardens 
and open squares. The different character of land 
ownership in our American cities, where individuals 
own a lot or two only, or at most one or two blocks, is 
chiefly responsible for our own lack in this direction. 
The significant and encouraging thing is, that our 
people have learned to be willing to tax themselves in 
order to secure these advantages which they have not 
hitherto enjoyed. Public sentiment should be so awak- 
ened on this subject that the city authorities can no 
longer delay to urge forward the operation of the bene- 
ficent law which is already on the statute books. But 
if New York is only now showing its appreciation of 
the need of small parks and squares, it has provided 



26 Nezv York in i%$o and in 1890. 

itself with a system of large parks that reveals a quality 
of foresight greatly creditable to the community. The 
Central Park is an enduring marvel to those who 
remember the rocks out of which it was made. The 
great capitals of Europe for the most part enjoy such 
parks as a part of their inheritance from the past, but 
New York, and our American cities generally, have 
been obliged to meet this need in the midst of the 
pressure upon their resources in every direction spring- 
ing from the necessities of their rapid growth. The 
new parks recently bought by the city have already 
cost over $9,000,000. Contrasted with the one hun- 
dred and seventy acres of public grounds in the New 
York of 1850, we have to-day public parks contain- 
ing 5,198 acres, without reference to the smaller 
squares and parks which existed in 1850. 

If New York has shown foresight in the matter of 
parks, it has shown a singular lack of foresight in 
dealing with the question of public franchises. By 
the charter of 1853, it was provided that " All ferries, 
docks, piers, and slips shall be leased, and all leases 
and sales of public property and franchises . 
shall be made by public auction and to the highest bid- 
der who will give adequate security." This provision 
touching the use of the water privileges inhering in 
the city has been the source of great revenue to the 
corporation. The franchise of the Union Ferry Co. 
alone, wdiich operates five ferries between New York 
and Brooklyn, has brought into the public treasury 
since i860 more than $2,000,000; while the franchise 
is still the property of the city, certain to be an impor- 
tant source of revenue in the future as it has been in 
the past. Daniel Webster said of Napoleon Bona- 
parte that he was like the fabled giant of antiquity, 



Ne%v York i)i I'^^o and in 189O. 27 

" powerful only while he touched the land." A narrow 
strip of water like the English Channel brought him 
completely to bay. It may be said of New York, sit- 
ting at the gateway of the continent and through all 
her history mistress of the waters, that she has been 
successful only on the water. Her good management 
has failed her in dealing with the problems of the land. 
The gas franchises have been given away, and these 
have been followed by the electric lighting franchises. 
Street-car franchises, perhaps valuable enough almost 
to support the city without taxation, have been parted 
with, one after another, and these were followed by the 
elevated railroad franchises. One invention after an- 
other has been suffered to become the instrument of 
private profit instead of being made to contribute a 
substantial part of the city's support. The story is 
even worse than this. It is bad enough to perceive 
what the city treasury has lost, but the effort to secure 
these valuable franchises for private advantage has 
probably been more prolific of corruption in the city 
government than any other single cause. Two mis- 
takes are apparent in the city's handling of its fran- 
chises. It was not soon enough perceived that the 
principle of competition did not apply to municipal 
franchises as it has, until recently, applied in private 
business. The effort on the part of the city to secure 
competition in the making of gas has resulted, not only 
in New York but almost everywhere else, in having 
the public streets repeatedly torn up for the purpose 
of duplicating the mains, with the ultimate result of 
capitalizing the plant at a value far beyond the actual 
need. As a consequence, the only relief in price has 
come from the arbitrary action of the Legislature. It 
has been pointed out that the city of Paris, by giving 



28 New York ill \%^o and in 1890, 

to a single corporation a monopoly of the business for 
a term of years, secured for itself the advantages 
which under our system have gone into the pockets of 
private stockholders, while the city has at the same 
time entirely protected its citizens from an overcharge. 
In other places the city has found it an advantage to 
own and operate the gas-works itself. Whichever 
form is chosen it has at last become clear, I think, that 
in cities every business demanding a public franchise, 
which, by its nature, can be best conducted as a mo- 
nopoly, should be treated as a monopoly for the bene- 
fit of the public. The public are justly suspicious of 
monopolies in private hands, but that does not seem to 
be any reason why they should fail to profit by the ad- 
vantages of this form of control in matters pertaining 
to themselves. The other mistake in relation to its 
franchises which has marked the whole of this era has 
been that the city, under the law, has held precisely 
the wrong attitude in relation to the matter. The 
only privilege granted to the city authorities has been 
to say yes or no to something which somebody wanted 
to do. The proper attitude for the city is to say, 
" We want such and such a thing clone. What will 
you do it for ? " The new rapid transit law happily il- 
lustrates the correct attitude, and it ought to be made 
the model for a general law which will apply, not only 
in New York but in every city of the State, in relation 
to railroad franchises in cities. The same idea prob- 
ably may be applied to other franchises with equal 
benefit. Under the former rapid transit law the duty 
of the commissioners was to lay down a route, to pre- 
pare a plan, and then to call for subscriptions to the 
stock of the corporation which should take up the fran- 
chise. When the corporation had been formed, it 



Nezv York in i%^o and in 1890. 29 

found itself with an incomplete right which could only 
be perfected by securing the consent of the city and 
the consent of the property owners, or of the Supreme 
Court in lieu of the abutting owners. It was precisely 
at this point that bribery and corruption found their 
opportunity. Under the new law all this business of 
securing consent is performed by the Rapid Transit 
Commission. As a consequence, when that work is 
completed the commission will be in a position to offer 
to investors the lease of a franchise wdiich will carry to 
tlie company securing it a completed right, a right as 
available without other consent as the right to operate 
a ferry. The law also provides that this franchise is 
not to be parted with indefinitely, but for a term of 
years. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance 
to New York, and to the cities of the United States, 
of profiting without delay by this new departure in the 
relation of a city to its public franchises. 

Even here, therefore, there is promise of improve- 
ment. In some other directions it will be felt by many 
that the government of to-day displays the same weak- 
nesses as those which marked it in 1850. This feeling 
may be summed up in a certain sense of the failure of 
the city government to secure money's worth for the 
money spent, and of the frequent incompetence of city 
officials for the work that the)- are called upon to do. 
At intervals, in the period under review, the city gov- 
ernment has shown itself shamefully corrupt. Whether 
justly or unjustly, it has never been entirely free, in all 
its parts, from the suspicion of this taint. A writer in 
another city says: " We are badly governed because 
we choose incompetent, dishonest, or at best inexperi- 
enced men to govern us." I think one may discern in 
the general situation two seeds of trouble. It has been 



30 New York in 1850 and in 1890. 

taken for granted that any man is competent to conduct 
the affairs of a city in any position to which he may be 
called. It needs no argument to prove that this is not 
so. Many positions in the city government call for 
special talents of a high order, and some of them de- 
mand the hio-hest order of talent that is to be found in 
the community. One reason, at least, why we do not 
often get such men is, because the people have no 
realizing sense of the demands of the situation. Until 
a few men, in recent years, have been to the trouble to 
tell us what has been achieved in some of the European 
cities, none of us knew how much behind the highest 
standard of a modern city our American cities were. 
The average citizen understands this but dimly even 
now. In other words, here, as in so many other direc- 
tions, a very deep-rooted difficulty is the lack in the 
community itself of the proper ideal. Our people per- 
ceive, perhaps, that, on the whole, the city improves 
rather than deteriorates, and they do not appreciate 
how much less the city government does than it might 
do if properly administered. There is no cure for this 
difficulty but that of education. Our people must be 
made to appreciate how much more has been achieved 
in the interest of the citizens in some of the cities 
abroad than we have been able to accomplish here. 

The other difficulty is even harder to overcome. It 
is not simply that the " spoils system," which has been 
so demoralizing a force all through the country, has 
produced the worst results in the cities ; it is that we 
have really lost in our cities the substance of popular 
government. Napoleon III., established by the plebis- 
cite as Emperor of the French, was as fairly an illus- 
tration of popular government as the system affords 
which prevails in most of our cities. In New York it 



Neiv York in \%^o and in 1890. 31 

is more easy to make this plain than elsewhere, be- 
cause it chances that the control is in the hands of a 
society whose nature can be understood from a study 
of its constitution and by-laws. But where there is no 
Tammany there is, in almost all our large cities, a 
"boss," who dominates the party organization of the 
majority party in such a way as to dictate absolutely 
the persons for whom the people are allowed to vote. 
The dominance of Tammany Hall in this city is a sin- 
gular phenomenon, for Tammany Hall is in no sense 
a society based on representation. It conducts what 
it calls primaries, and these apparently are on the 
broadest basis. They are open to all democratic vot- 
ers in each assembly district " acting in unison with 
Tammany Hall." These voters are permitted to elect, 
in great numbers, delegates to nominating conventions, 
but the "Committee on Organization" of Tammany 
Hall, according to their by-laws, " shall, in their dis- 
cretion, have power of revision and substitution of all 
nominations hereafter made by conventions called by 
the General Committee, or any District Committee of 
this organization, whenever the honor, preservation, 
and integrity of this organization shall require such 
action." Here is an oligarchy — not popular control. 
In Tammany Hall there is no enrolment of voters, 
neither are there to be found in the by-laws any pro- 
visions for inspectors, for voting by ballot, for a count, 
nor for official returns of the result. These seem to 
be naively recognized as useless formalities in the 
presence of an intelligent Committee on Organization 
armed with such authority as I have quoted. The con- 
trol of this society, and of the nominations which it 
makes, is practically lodged with the Committee on 
Organization, and in reality the only privilege which 



32 Neiv York in I'^^O and in 1890. 

Tammany extends to the voters of New York is the 
privilege of ratifying or defeating the nominees whom 
this committee are pleased to put forward. This so- 
ciety finds its opportunity by conforming to the forms 
of popular government, but the failures which may be 
charged to its door, whatever they are, it is pleasant 
to remember, are not so much the failures of popular 
government as of the very reverse of popular govern- 
ment. The remedy is not easy to find, nor will it be 
easy to apply. Nevertheless, I believe that it will be 
found. I suppose it may have seemed equally hope- 
less in 1850 to secure an honest election and a fair 
count, but we have lived to see that accomplished in 
the space of forty years. One is not over-sanguine, I 
think, who believes that the next forty years will find 
a remedy for many of the evils from which we suffer 
now. The progress of the city always has been 
marked, more or less, by the habit of the old boxer ot 
whom Demosthenes speaks, who, whenever he was 
struck, put his hand where it would guard him from 
being struck in the same place again. The attack 
certainly may come elsewhere, but, after all, something 
is gained. On the main question, therefore, I sum up 
in the general conclusion, that our cities, tested even 
by New York, are not going from bad to worse. 
They are doubtless worse at some times than at oth- 
ers, but I believe that it may be fairly claimed that the 
New York of 1890 was in man)' important respects a 
better governed city than the New York of 1850. 






